Armstrong 2: Documents by date

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Andrew H. Wilson
WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO
235 Montgomery Street
Suite 450

San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 391-3900

Laurie J. Bartilson
BOWLES & MOXON
6255 Sunset Boulevard
Suite 2000

Hollywood, California 90028
(213) 661-4030

RECEIVED

MAR 2 6 1392

Attorneys for Plaintiff HUB LAW OFFICES

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
INTERNATIONAL, a California not-
for-profit religious corporation

Plaintiff,

vs .

GERALD ARMSTRONG and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive.

Defendants .

) Case No. 152 229

)

) APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO
) SHOW CAUSE WHY GERALD
) ARMSTRONG AND FORD GREENE
) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN
) CONTEMPT OF COURT
)

) [C.C.P. § 1209 (a) (5) ]

)

) DATE: March _ , 1992

) TIME: To be determined
) DEPT: 4
)

) No trial date

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff Church of Scientology International ("the Church")
applies ex parte for this Court to issue an order directing
defendant Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong") and his counsel. Ford
Greene ("Greene"), to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt of this Court, pursuant to section 1209 (a) (5) of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This application is made on the grounds that:

♦ Armstrong acted as an expert witness in Hunziker v.

Applied Materials. No. 692629 S.C.S.C., testifying as an expert
witness and producing documents on March 13, 1992. Armstrong
stated he was testifying "voluntarily” and also that he had been
subpoenaed ^ John Elstead. the attorney who had designated him
as an expert. The subpoena (which Armstrong refused to produce)
was given to Armstrong by Elstead when he arrived for the
deposition. Armstrong provided documents to Elstead voluntarily
without any subpoena, telling Elstead at the time of delivery
that a TRO had been issued.

♦ Within moments of this Court's granting of a 45-day
extension of its Temporary Restraining Order, Armstrong and
Greene committed new violations of that Agreement and the TRO in
the course of media interviews just outside the door to the
courtroom in which the TRO had issued; Armstrong and Greene had
invited the media to the hearing through telephone calls and a
press release.

♦ Armstrong and Greene, as Armstrong's agent, granted the
media additional interviews, from Greene's law offices, which
further violated both the Agreement and the TRO issued by this
Court .

♦ The press release itself violates the TRO in several
respects by disclosing Armstrong's experiences with the Church of
Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard at the time of the Settlement
Agreement .

♦ Armstrong's breaches in the deposition, and Armstrong's
and Greene's breaches in the press release and media interviews

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

were calculated, deliberate and willful. They represent a
defiance not only of his unambiguous contractual commitments, but
also of the direct and specific injunction of this Court.

Based upon the accompanying Declarations of Laurie J .
Bartilson and Andrew H. Wilson, and the exhibits submitted with
those declarations, the Church now applies for an order directing
Armstrong and Greene, and each of them, to appear and to show
cause why: (i) they should not be held in contempt of this Court
and sanctioned for such contempt, under the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure Sections 1209 et sea. ; and (ii) they should not
be required to pay the Church's attorneys' fees for these
proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5.

This Application is based upon this Application itself; the
concurrently filed Declarations of Laurie J. Bartilson and Andrew
H. Wilson; the exhibits submitted with those declarations; the
records on file in this case; and such further evidence and
argument as may be properly presented at the hearing of this
Application.

Dated: March 26, 1992 Respectfully submitted:

WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO

Laurie J. Bartilson
BOWLES & MOXON

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

3

ANDREW H. WILSON
STEPHEN C. RYAN*
JEANNETTE D. LEJARDI
STUART A. KNOWLES
ANNE R. WOODS
LINDA M. FONG
SHAUNA T. RAJKOWSKI

WILSON. RYAN & CAMPILONGO

A PHOFESSIONAi LAW CORPORATION

235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 450
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 391-3900
TELECOPY (415) 954-0938

•CERTIFIED TAXATION SPECIAUST
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION

March 26, 1992

OF COUNSEL
LISA F. CAMPILONGO
EDWARD L.BLUM

The Honorable Michael B. Duff icy
Marin County Superior Court
Hall of Justice
Civil Center Drive
San Rafael, California 94901

Re: Church of Scientology v. Armstrong;

Our File No. SCI02-003

Dear Judge Duff icy:

I enclose the following in connection with the
Application of Plaintiff Church of Scientology International for
an Order to Show Cause re Contempt:

1. APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT;

2. DECLARATION OF ANDREW H. WILSON;

3. DECLARATION OF LAURIE J. BARTILSON;

4. (PROPOSED) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT.

Although the customary procedure to initiate contempt
proceedings is to seek an order to show cause on an ex parte
basis, given the Court's busy schedule and the number of ex parte
applications previously submitted in this matter, we have decided
to simply transmit the referenced application and supporting
declarations to you, with copies to opposing counsel.

We suggest that Defendant Armstrong be given a
reasonable period of time, not to exceed five (5) days to submit
any counter-declarations he wishes to submit and that the Court
then decide on the papers so submitted whether the Order To Show
Cause should issue.

Of course, should the Court wish to hear oral argument,
we would be happy to appear at the Court's convenience.

RECEIVED

MAR 2 6 1392

HUB LAW OFFICES

-1-

We regret having to take up the Court's time with this
Application. However, the number and nature of the violations of
the Temporary Restraining Order committed by Armstrong compel us
to do so. The authority of the Court to consider and rule on
this Application emanates from Paragraph 1(c) of this Court's
order of March 24, 1992 which gives the Court continuing
jurisdiction to enforce the Temporary Restraining Order, and upon
this Court's inherent power to supervise and compel performance
of its own orders.

Very truly yours.

Andrew H. Wilson

AHW-0315:paii

Enclosures

cc: Ford Greene (w/enclosures - via hand delivery)

Laurie J. Bartilson (w/enclosures - via regular mail)
Graham Berry (w/enclosures - via regular mail)

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

I declare that I am employed in the City and County of
San Francisco, California.

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to
the within entitled action. My business address is 235 Montgomery
Street, Suite 450, San Francisco, California.

On March 26, 1992, I served the following documents in

said cause: APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY GERALD
ARMSTRONG AND FORD GREENE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT,
DECLARATIONS OF ANDREW H. WILSON AND LAURIE J. BARTILSON IN
SUPPORT OF SAID APPLICATION, AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by
causing true copies of the same to be hand delivered to the
following at the address listed below:

Ford Greene, Esq.

711 Sir Frances Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California thi ect.

Executed at San Francisco,

Ford Greene
Lawyer

HUB LflUU Offices

711 SID fDflnCIS DDflK€ BOUL€VflDD

sfin flns€Lmo, cflLifODnm 94960-1949

(415) 258-0360

License No. 107BD1
Facsimile (415) 45B-531B

March 27, 1992

HONORABLE MICHAEL B. DUFFICY
Department 4

Superior Court of California
County of Marin
Hall of Justice, Civic Center
San Rafael, California 94903

By Hand Delivery

RECEIVED

RE: Scientology v. Armstrong

Marin County Superior Court
Case No. 152229

APR 1 1992
HUE LAW OFFICES

Dear Honorable Judge Duff icy:

Late yesterday afternoon my office was served with a copy of
Scientology ^ s Order to Show Cause re Contempt and supporting
papers. The purpose of this letter is to respond to this
unnoticed, ^ parte application.

Our position is that the court does not have jurisdiction to
take any action because once the Order of Transfer is filed, the
Court loses jurisdiction to take any act except dismiss the case
in the event that the transfer fees are not paid. 1/ This
principle is set forth as follows:

^ I will point out that Scientology bases the proposition
that the Court has jurisdiction on Paragraph 1 (c) of your Order
filed March 24, 1992. This provision was the consequence of a
discussion between Mr. Wilson and me on March 23 regarding the^
fact that you had not ruled on the portion of the transfer motion
that pertained to attorney's fee and costs. At that time Mr.
Wilson made no comment that he and his client had considered^
bringing any contempt citation. My agreement with him pertained
to fees and costs, only. It did not include within its scope any
stipulation that the Court was to maintain jurisdiction for all
purposes. Thus, Mr. Wilson's agreement that the Court could rule
on the motion for fees and costs tricked me into an agreement
that he intended, at the time, to use as a means of bringing a
contempt application that otherwise he could not do in this
Court .

HONORABLE MICHAEL B. DUFFICY By Hand Delive.rY

March 27, 1992
Page 2 .

_ _ _ /

"Appellants were required to deposit with the clerk the
costs and fees for the transfer before such transfer
should be made. Section 399. Although such deposit
was not made the order of transfer had divested the Los
Angeles Superior court of jurisdiction to take any
other step in the action except one, namely, it was
required to dismiss the action after one year had
elapsed within which the costs and fees for making up
the transcript 'have not been so paid.' Section 581b."

London v. Morrison (1950) 222 P.2d 941, 99 Cal.App.2d 876; S^

also Abraham v. King 51 C.A. 703.

However, should the Court determine that it does have
jurisdiction to entertain Scientology's application, I direct the
Court's attention to the following misrepresentations of the
record and of fact.

Contrary to Ms. Bartilson's sworn statement that "Both
Armstrong and his attorney. Ford Greene, were present in the
courtroom at the March 3, 1992 hearing" Bartilson Declaration at
2:11-12, your recollection and the record belies this false
statement. Gerald Armstrong was not present when this case first
came before you on March 3 .

Although Mr. Wilson claims "As soon as [he] had received a
signed copy of the TRO from the Court, [he] served the TRO on Mr.
Greene's office by mail." Wilson Declaration at 3:2—3. As I
stated at the end of the March 20 hearing, I had never been

served with any copy of the first TRO. Indeed, despite the fact

that I stated as much on the record, and Mr. Wilson stated on the
record that he would "mail another," I still was never served

with any copy of the initial TRO until I saw the same attached as

an exhibit to Scientology's contempt papers.

If the Court decides that it still does have jurisdiction
over this case, and further decides that Scientology's showing is
adequate to justify the issuance of an OSC re Contempt we are
prepared to vigorously litigate this spurious attack on Mr.
Armstrong and me. Your Order does not enjoin either Armstrong or
myself from speaking to the press and alerting the Country to the
fact of Scientology's efforts to obstruct justice and suppress
evidence by getting you to enforce this illegal agreement. The
fact that Scientology is taking the position that such is within
the scope of your Order is illustrative of its bad faith inasmuch
as it is attempting to stretch the Order far beyond any
maintenance of what the Court perceived, we believe mistakenly.

HONORABLE MICHAEL B. DUFFICY By Hand Delivery

March 27, 1992
Page 3 .

_ /

to be the status quo. f/ The status quo is not that Scientology
can talk to reporters in the hallway after the March 20 hearing,
but if Armstrong says anything, he is violating a court order.
That is, however, what you are being asked to do.

Thus, while Armstrong is required to guess at the meaning of
the Court's overly broad and constitutionally vague TRO, what is
clearly beyond its scope is any prohibition of Armstrong
discussing the attacks upon him by Scientology after December 6,
1986, the date of the settlement agreement. The fact that
Scientology is trying to get you to countenance its claim that
discussing your TRO with members of the press is a violation of
your TRO is, I respectfully submit, ridiculous, and an obscene
attempt to increase the scope of your prior restraint.
Furthermore, it indicates that Scientology will stop at nothing
to prevent others from exercising the same rights that it demands
for itself.

In the event that any OSC re Contempt issues, our request is
to be allowed a full 15 days notice in order to prepare
therefore.

: acg

cc: Gerald Armstrong

Graham E. Berry, Esq.
Andrew H. Wilson, Esq.
Laurie J. Bartilson, Esq.

^ For 24 months before your Order, Armstrong had
expressed his right to Free Speech regarding pre-settlement
material and Scientology did nothing about it.